U . S . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 20–748PDF 2005 HOW INTERNET PROTOCOL-ENABLED SERVICES ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF COMMUNICA- TIONS: A LOOK AT VIDEO AND DATA SERVICES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION APRIL 20, 2005 Serial No. 109–19 Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman RALPH M. HALL, Texas MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida Vice Chairman FRED UPTON, Michigan CLIFF STEARNS, Florida PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio NATHAN DEAL, Georgia ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi, Vice Chairman VITO FOSSELLA, New York ROY BLUNT, Missouri STEVE BUYER, Indiana GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania MARY BONO, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon LEE TERRY, Nebraska MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey MIKE ROGERS, Michigan C.L. ‘‘BUTCH’’ OTTER, Idaho SUE MYRICK, North Carolina JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan Ranking Member HENRY A. WAXMAN, California EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RICK BOUCHER, Virginia EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey SHERROD BROWN, Ohio BART GORDON, Tennessee BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California BART STUPAK, Michigan ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland GENE GREEN, Texas TED STRICKLAND, Ohio DIANA D E GETTE, Colorado LOIS CAPPS, California MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania TOM ALLEN, Maine JIM DAVIS, Florida JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois HILDA L. SOLIS, California CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JAY INSLEE, Washington TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MIKE ROSS, Arkansas B UD A LBRIGHT , Staff Director D AVID C AVICKE , Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel R EID P.F. S TUNTZ , Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel S UBCOMMITTEE ON T ELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE I NTERNET FRED UPTON, Michigan, Chairman MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida CLIFF STEARNS, Florida PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi VITO FOSSELLA, New York GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire GREG WALDEN, Oregon LEE TERRY, Nebraska MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee JOE BARTON, Texas, (Ex Officio) EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts Ranking Member ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas JAY INSLEE, Washington RICK BOUCHER, Virginia EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey SHERROD BROWN, Ohio BART GORDON, Tennessee BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California BART STUPAK, Michigan JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, (Ex Officio) ( II ) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 0486 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 C O N T E N T S Page Testimony of: Champion, Lea Ann, Senior Executive Vice President, IP Operations and Services, SBC Services, Inc 7 Cohen, David L., Executive Vice President, Comcast Corporation 17 Gleason, James M., President, New Wave Communications, Chairman, American Cable Association 29 Ingalls, Robert E., Jr., President, Retail Markets Group, Verizon Commu- nications 20 Mitchell, Paul, Senior Director and General Manager, Microsoft TV Divi- sion, Microsoft Corporation 11 Perry, Jack, President and Chief Executive Officer, Decisionmark Cor- poration 40 Schmidt, Gregory, Vice President of New Development and General Counsel, Lin Television Corporation, on Behalf of National Association of Broadcasters 23 Additional material submitted for the record: Champion, Lea Ann, Senior Executive Vice President, IP Operations and Services, SBC Services, Inc., letter dated May 18, 2005, enclosing response for the record 82 Cohen, David L., Executive Vice President, Comcast Corporation, letter dated May 24, 2005, enclosing response for the record 85 Gleason, James M., President, New Wave Communications, Chairman, American Cable Association, response for the record 80 Ingalls, Robert E., Jr., President, Retail Markets Group, Verizon Commu- nications, letter dated May 24, 2005, enclosing response for the record 88 Mitchell, Paul, Senior Director and General Manager, Microsoft TV Divi- sion, Microsoft Corporation, letter dated May 24, 2005, enclosing re- sponse for the record 91 Perry, Jack, President and Chief Executive Officer, Decisionmark Cor- poration, letter dated May 17, 2005, enclosing response for the record 93 Schmidt, Gregory, Vice President of New Development and General Counsel, Lin Television Corporation, on Behalf of National Association of Broadcasters, letter dated May 23, 2005, enclosing response for the record 94 ( III ) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 (1) HOW INTERNET PROTOCOL-ENABLED SERV- ICES ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF COMMU- NICATIONS: A LOOK AT VIDEO AND DATA SERVICES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005 H OUSE OF R EPRESENTATIVES , C OMMITTEE ON E NERGY AND C OMMERCE , S UBCOMMITTEE ON T ELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE I NTERNET , Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Fred Upton (chairman) presiding. Members present: Representatives Upton, Stearns, Gillmor, Whitfield, Cubin, Shimkus, Pickering, Radanovich, Bass, Walden, Terry, Ferguson, Sullivan, Blackburn, Markey, Doyle, Gonzalez, Inslee, Boucher, Towns, Gordon, Rush, Eshoo, and Stupak. Staff present: Howard Waltzman, chief counsel; Neil Fried, ma- jority counsel; Will Nordwind, policy coordinator; Jaylyn Jensen, senior legislative analyst; Anh Nguyen, legislative clerk; Kevin Schweers, communications director; Jon Tripp, deputy communica- tions director; Peter Filon, minority counsel; Johanna Shelton, mi- nority counsel; and Turney Hall, staff assistant. Mr. U PTON . Good morning. Today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘How Internet Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the Face of Com- munications: A Look at Video and Data Services.’’ Video and data are the second and third legs of the three-legged IP-enabled stool. Recently, we examined Voice over IP, which is the other leg. And as we modernize our Nation’s communications laws, it is my goal to ensure that all three legs of the IP-enabled stool are covered by whatever we do. Anything short of that could ham- per deployment of the widest range of IP-enabled services to the American people and thwart the widest range of intermodal com- petition in the communications marketplace. When video is sent in an IP format through a broadband connec- tion, it enables the provider to send just the content that the sub- scriber wants at that particular time, as opposed to cable or sat- ellite technology, which typically requires all channels to be avail- able to each subscriber at the same time, waiting for the subscriber to change the channel. As a result, IP delivered over broadband en- ables a much more efficient use of a provider’s capacity and thus enables that capacity to be used to offer more content and more services. In addition, when video is sent in an IP format through VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 2 a broadband connection, it enables more interactively, which, in turn, enables more customization of the subscriber’s video experi- ence. Moreover, it enables voice and data to be combined with a video offering, which many subscribers may find attractive. At issue today is what the proper regulatory framework for IP- delivered video should be. Of particular interested to me is whether IP-delivered video services should be treated the same way as cable in terms of existing local franchise law. Shouldn’t the FCC’s deter- mination that Vonage’s VoIP service is uniquely interstate in na- ture and therefore not subject to State regulation guide our logic when we discuss local franchise authority over IP-delivered video services? Moreover, couldn’t certain IP-delivered video services be so distinct from today’s cable service to warrant a distinction in the law regarding local franchise authority? I look forward to exploring these and other issues with our wit- nesses today. And with that, I yield to the ranking member and my friend, Mr. Markey from Massachusetts, for an opening statement. Mr. M ARKEY . I thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you so much for calling this hearing this morning on the policy questions raised by the Internet Protocol-based video and data services. This morning, we will receive testimony on IP-enabled data services and video services. Microsoft’s Xbox, for example, is not only a widely popular game application for broadband networks, but also provides voice serv- ices as a feature. Policy makers will need to address what happens when IP applications combine multiple services, such as voice, with other data information for purposes of determining proper regu- latory treatment. We also need to enact strong protections ensuring the consumers are not thwarted from utilization the applications of their choice over the Internet and that innovators and entrepreneurs are not frustrated in their ability to offer innovative new services to con- sumers over broadband networks. Today’s hearing raises a number of important policy issues on video-related issues as well. The cable market today remains high- ly concentrated. Consumers continue to pay too much for cable service. An independent cable operator is almost an oxymoron, as the overwhelming majority of cable channels are either owned by major television networks or the cable operators themselves. When cable operators are questioned annually about why rates continue to rise annually, they note that they have spent large sums upgrad- ing their networks for additional services and channels. There is no question the cable networks have been upgraded and that they increasingly offer an array of services to customers, in- cluding much-needed voice competition. Additionally, cable opera- tors often point to increases in programming costs as a key reason consumer rates keep rising. The programmers, in turn, often point to rising costs in the sports marketplace. Policy makers have been hoping for years that competition would arrive to ameliorate some of these unhealthy dynamics in the marketplace, but for millions of consumers, effective competition has not yet arrived. Which brings us to the Bell Telephone utilities. As the Bells roll out IP video services, policymakers must determine whether such services represent a qualitatively distinct service of services now of- VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 3 fered for cable operators. If so, we will also need to determine whether that also means that must-carry rules, sports blackout rules, community access channels, local franchises, franchise fees, consumer privacy protections, and other obligations to which we currently hold cable operators should be ignored in whole or in part for the Bell companies. The benefits of competitive IP-based services are manifold in terms of consumer choice and possible job creation and innovation. But we must remember that consumers can only derive the bene- fits of such new broadband services if they can actually afford a broadband connection and only if providers offer such services in their neighborhood in the first place. With this in mind, it is par- ticularly troubling that SBC and Verizon have deployment plans that skip over or avoid the very communities in their service terri- tories which could most benefit from an affordable alternative in the marketplace. It is unusual, in this context, to receive requests for forbearance from the public interest obligations the cable opera- tor’s discharge from providers whose current deployment plans ar- guably widen rather than bridge the digital divide, which remains in our society. An argument that rules need to be bent or waived so that service can reach the most affluent sooner is simply not a compelling pub- lic interest case to make. I hope that these companies will reflect on their plans and needs of their own customers and recalibrate their deployment plans so that all sectors of our society are appro- priately served. In the end, this is not only good telecommuni- cations policy, it is also good economic policy for our country. I want to thank Chairman Upton so much for this hearing, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Whitfield? Mr. W HITFIELD . Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We, I noticed, have a distinguished panel here of seven people, so I will waive my opening statement. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Shimkus. Mr. S HIMKUS . Pass. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Walden. Mr. W ALDEN . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I am dressed like the chairman of the Oversight and Inves- tigations Subcommittee, I, too, will waive. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Ferguson. Mr. F ERGUSON . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a different suit on, so I will offer an opening statement. Thank you for holding this hearing on Internet Protocol-related services. These hearings have been a great opportunity for all members, particularly new subcommittee members, like myself, to get the full picture of the exciting new services being made avail- able to our constituents. They have also given us guidance on how our committee should treat these services as we consider a rewrite of the communications act. Voice over Internet Protocol has already permeated the American marketplace, providing new ways for people to communicate out- side traditional telephony and wireless cell phones. IP video, the subject of today’s hearing, is a new and exciting product poised to enter the marketplace and to have a major impact on the video VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 4 services industry. IP video, some already available and some in de- velopment, will fundamentally change the way we watch television and receive other video content. This new option will also directly compete with other established offerings, such as cable and sat- ellite. With these options available to the consumer, this committee will need to consider how to ensure that a level, competitive play- ing field exists for all industries. We also need to determine whether and how these new services fit into the current regulatory landscape and what it takes to get them deployed quickly with the least amount of government inter- ference. I welcome the witnesses present here today. I look forward to hearing your varied perspectives on what Congress’s role should be as we move forward in this exciting new area. Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back. And I thank you. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Doyle. Mr. D OYLE . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I also want to thank each witness for agreeing to appear before us today. This is our third hearing on IP-enabled services, and in the time that we have looked at this issue, I have only become more con- vinced that the revolutionary effect this medium will have on every aspect of communications. It is truly an exciting time in the telecom world, exciting both for consumers who will benefit from increased choice and value, and also for companies that will use IP-enabled services to compete for new business opportunities. I have always believed that the role of this subcommittee should be to try to pass legislation that will pro- mote and increase competition within industries in order to yield greater benefits for consumers. And it is clear to me that if we can craft and pass good legislation, one major area where consumers will see significant benefits is in the area of choice. Consumers will have multiple choices to make when determining from whom or where to purchase voice, data, and video services. VoIP calls for a cable provider, video services through a phone company, and data services through a satellite provider are all clos- er than most people might think. In fact, these services are here, and they are growing in popularity. And in order for them to con- tinue to grow in popularity, it is incumbent upon us to provide leg- islative clarity to both industry and consumers. It is clear to me that the speed with which IP-enabled services have changed the telecommunication industry requires that we craft legislation that places more emphasis on regulating the services companies offer as opposed to regulating the manner in which they are delivered. Regulatory parity across platforms seems like a sensible goal for us to strive toward. Some issues that have always been the subject of regulation may have grown in importance as this technology has advanced. Because the extent that a consumer can benefit from this new IP-enabled technology is entirely dependent upon that consumer’s access to broadband networks. All communities should have access to the benefits of IP-enabled services. We must do more to promote the deployment of broadband services, and we must en- sure that those services are available in all of our communities, not just the most affluent ones. For this technology to truly create op- portunities, it must be available to everyone. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 5 I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. I want to specifically welcome Mr. David L. Cohen, Executive Vice President of Comcast Corporation to the subcommittee this morning. I have had the pleasure of knowing David for many years, dating back to his Chief of Staff days to then mayor of Philadelphia and know our Governor, Ed Rendell. David’s civic and charitable activities make him an asset both to Comcast and also to the State of Pennsyl- vania. David, welcome. Welcome to all of the panelists. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I yield back. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Pickering. Mr. P ICKERING . Mr. Chairman, I just want to thank you for hav- ing this hearing, and I will waive my time. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Terry. Ms. Eshoo. Mr. Gordon. Mr. G ORDON . Mr. Chairman, this is an important hearing, and I welcome the opportunity to hear from our witnesses today. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Boucher. Mr. B OUCHER . Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you for focusing the subcommittee’s attention this morning on a matter of far-reaching consequence for the tele- communications marketplace. The arrival of advanced communications over the Internet, in- cluding Video over Internet Protocol, promises a broad trans- formation in the market for multi-channel video programming serv- ices. Internet-based video will bring digital clarity and a wider array of service offerings to consumers. As the private sector both welcomes and accommodates these dramatic changes, a new regulatory framework is required. That is why our colleague, Mr. Stearns, and I have introduced legislation that would treat all advanced Internet communications with a light regulatory touch. It is noteworthy that our bill would apply the new regulatory framework to IP video as well as to VoIP and other more commonly known applications that are Internet-based. Our view is that the scope of the new law should be broad and not be limited just to VoIP. After hearing this morning from our witnesses about the dra- matic new IP video services that are now on the horizon, I hope that the members of the subcommittee will agree that these serv- ices should also be within the coverage of the new, light-touch reg- ulatory framework. Within that framework, IP services would be declared to be interstate in nature and the States would be prohib- ited from regulating. At the Federal level, regulation would truly be minimal. Legacy regulations applicable to the public-switched telephone network would not apply. The FCC would be empowered only to do the fol- lowing and only with regard to VoIP, which substitutes directly for regular telephone service: provide for E911 access, provide for dis- ability access, provide for access charges where the call is termi- nated on the public switched telephone network, provide for Uni- versal Service payments, and provide for technically feasible law enforcement access. VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 6 We face a number of questions, including the need for network neutrality, to prevent platform owners from discriminating in favor of their own content to the disadvantage of unaffiliated content providers, and how to address the video franchising requirements imposed by local governments. Perhaps our witnesses this morning will address some of these matters during their comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Mr. U PTON . Mr. Stupak passes. That concludes our opening statements. I would just make unani- mous consent that all members will be able to put their opening statements in as part of the record. I would note that the House is in session, and we are taking up a very important energy bill on the House floor, so members will be in and out. Other subcommit- tees are meeting as well. [Additional statement submitted for the record follows:] P REPARED S TATEMENT OF H ON . J OE B ARTON , C HAIRMAN , C OMMITTEE ON E NERGY AND C OMMERCE Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. Last month we examined how Internet Protocol is revolutionizing voice services. Today we examine how Internet Protocol and broadband technology is revolutionizing video services. Many of you are probably already aware of video streaming technology. Compa- nies such as RealNetworks have for some time been enabling consumers to watch news clips and other video content over computers using the Web and browser-type interfaces. One advantage to delivering content in IP format and over broadband connections is that it uses capacity more efficiently. Cable and satellite operators have tradition- ally had to make all their channels available to each subscriber simultaneously, re- gardless of which channel the subscriber was watching at a particular time. Internet Protocol allows a provider to transmit only the content that a consumer is watching, freeing capacity on the network to offer more content to more consumers as well as additional services and applications. And broadband networks are increasingly providing more bandwidth, enabling the provision of new, content-rich services. Another advantage of IP is its increased interactivity. By converting video to an IP format and adding two-way broadband connectivity, providers can tailor pro- gramming to each specific viewer, and allow the viewer to alter specific components of that programming in real time. IP also facilitates the introduction of voice and data functionality into the video product. As we look toward modernizing the Communications Act, we will need to consider what the appropriate statutory framework should be for IP-delivered video services. Should they be governed by existing provisions in the Communications Act, such as the franchising, must-carry, and program access rules, even though those provisions were drafted without IP technology in mind? Is it even possible to apply those rules to video delivered over the geographically boundless Internet? What is the right statutory framework that will increase competition, allow innovative services to flourish, and enable all industry participants to benefit from the advantages of IP technology? I look forward to today’s testimony, and welcome our witnesses’ help in examining the technological, business, and legal implications of IP-delivered video. Today we stand on the threshold of a new age in communications. The 1996 Tele- communications Act served an important purpose, but technology has moved on. This year, one of my high priorities is to update the old act and to do it well. The right approach will invigorate the tech sector and produce jobs, growth and oppor- tunity for its workers. American consumers will get an array of services and choices that were unimagined just a few years ago. I can’t wait to get started. I yield back. Mr. U PTON . As all of my colleagues indicated, we do have a very distinguished panel of witnesses for today’s hearing. And we are joined by Ms. Lea Ann Champion, Senior Executive Vice President of IP Operations and Services for SBC; Mr. Paul Mitchell, Senior VerDate 11-MAY-2000 07:21 Sep 15, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 20748.TXT HCOM1 PsN: HCOM1 [...]... Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina and South Carolina My company provides cable television, digital cable, high-speed internet, local phone VOIP service, digital video recorders and other advanced services in 10 smaller systems and rural areas throughout the Midwest and Southeast United States I am also the chairman of the American Cable Association ACA represents nearly 1,100 smaller and medium-sized... media saturation and attention from local on-air talent Broadcasters help give an organization a voice, and are the main conduit for members of a community to discuss the issues of the day amongst themselves A broadcaster can help an organization make its case directly to local citizens, to raise its public profile in a unique way, and to cement connections within local communities A broadcaster can... services and products that ride atop or are connect to broadband transport networks For example, we provide software used to run the Windows Media Center Edition PC which is available in the market today and enables consumers today to access an analog or digital broadcast video service, an analog multichannel cable video service, photos, music, Internet services, and all the other features of a PC We are. .. one, the then-Chairman of this Subcommittee predicted that in the future you will be able to watch your phone, answer your PC, and download your television These notions are no longer theory Today, they are a reality IP services and products today enable the delivery of voice, data, and video in new and innovative ways and represent a transition in how consumers communicate, since it allows consumers at. .. Manager for the Microsoft TV Division at Microsoft This hearing is important, because it asks how current Internet technologies are transforming the consumer experience and what, if any, obligations should apply Microsoft is not a network provider Instead, we offer a variety of Internet products and services that ride atop of and use a broadband transport Our products and services that make use of. .. between assured carriage (must carry) and no compensation, or retransmission consent, where the station and the cable operator negotiated over the terms and conditions of carriage 11 1988 Report and Order, at ¶ 74 12 Id 13 In 2004 the profit margins for the average affiliate station in ADI markets 101-125, 126150, 151-175, and 176 plus were 8.4%, 0.6%, 10.6%, and 1.4%, respectively, and the average PreTax... over the years to ensure that cities as large as New York all of the way down to communities as small as Glendive, Montana can have their own unique broadcasting voices This committee, in particular, has repeatedly recognized the value of broadcast localism when writing the first Satellite Home Viewer Act of 1998 and reauthorizing the act in 1999 And again this year and last year, the committee made... rules are to be changed, they should be changed for all providers Mr Chairman, for years the phone companies have protested the disparity between the way the law treats their DSL service and the way it treats cable’s high speed Internet service Their plea has been, ‘‘Treat us like the cable companies.’’ And I would note that Comcast has never objected to that Now that the phone companies plan to offer video, ... are making all of the necessary preparations for the commercial launch of FiOS TV this year We are obtaining franchises We are signing content deals with broadcasters and programmers, working with the software programmers on interactive features and with the hardware developers on our set-tops The result will be a compelling video experience for consumers and the true video choice for the marketplace... capability and experience, watching sports will never be the same The IP-based platform will allow customers to access and program services even when they are away from home As an example, customers will be able to use their Cingular phone to access a list of shows, watch a commercial for the show right there on their phone’s screen, and then schedule to record that show And the customer will be able . Protocol-Enabled Services Are Changing the Face of Com- munications: A Look at Video and Data Services. ’’ Video and data are the second and third legs of the three-legged IP-enabled. PsN: HCOM1 (1) HOW INTERNET PROTOCOL-ENABLED SERV- ICES ARE CHANGING THE FACE OF COMMU- NICATIONS: A LOOK AT VIDEO AND DATA SERVICES WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2005 H OUSE